Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,299
Just to be clear, my post (#14) was in anticipation of the coming rhetoric from some of the groups who supported this bill, not my own sentiment.
MT Fielder's Constitutional Referendum
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
Schaaf
Well-known member
How much can the amendment be changed at this point? After watching how HB 96 morphed into a Ranching for Wildlife bill, is this Amendment salvageable if Fielder is willing to take legal advice (I know, highly unlikely), from those that know what they're talking about? Or is it time that this Amendment be scrapped completely and possibly approached at a different time?
Couple of issues here:
SPortsmen used the initiative process to eliminate game farms and help ban cyanide heap leach mining, so not all initatives are bad. Montana's initiative process is fairly permissive, which isn't a bad thing, especially given the tenor and tone of politics today, and the non-stop gridlock that plagues both congress and the state house. Saying that we need to give up the basic right to have citizens decide policy and constitutional issues shouldn't be our go to as sportsmen, even in the face of anti-hunting & trapping efforts. Trappers, hunters, anglers and others beat back I-177 2-1 at the ballot. Yes it costs money to do so, but that's part of the price we pay for living in a democracy.
As far as the legislation not being perfect - it matters. This isn't a statute that can be changed easily. It's a constitutional amendment, and as such, should be as close to perfect as possible. We are changing the constitution of the state of Montana, that should never be done lightly, or half-assed. If Fielder is serious about finding a way forward with the same groups whom she has dismissed, then I think an interim process that addresses the issue makes much more sense than simply amending a bad bill and passing it.
FWP isn't afraid of having to manage biologically, they're afraid of a poorly written amendment to the constitution. There are two different issues at play here.
The bill just needs to be killed.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
http://m.bigskypress.com/missoula/t...desert-with-doug-chadwick/Content?oid=3392841
Went to this last night. Good talk. Doug is a busy guy. Thinking about doing a CE with Vital Ground. My wife liked his wolverine book, so I bought her the Gobi bear book. Wife happy!
Went to this last night. Good talk. Doug is a busy guy. Thinking about doing a CE with Vital Ground. My wife liked his wolverine book, so I bought her the Gobi bear book. Wife happy!
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yes, they are...mainly because they rarely do it.
Don't deny it, or I'll present a few dozen specifics on how they don't.
But, as to the C. Amendment, I agree 100%...it has to be done right, and if its not, it can result in disaster.
Touche.
The point still stands, it's not the provision to manage by science, it's that it would make it nebulous as to what that means, and that it would create litigation out the wazoo.
I actually had this hearing on in the background while I worked on the computer yesterday afternoon, as I suspect we may have a similar proposal in CO in the near future. A couple of things that caught my attention: Fielder invoked Teddy R. as her inspiration for wanting to protect the right to hunt. I wonder how TR's philosophy has influenced her on federal land issues? Fielder also said that she is a champion for scientific wildlife management that allows populations to thrive and grow (paraphrased), which makes me believe she would be a strong proponent of separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. You wild sheep advocates in MT might look into that.... 
Would you care to enlighten me about how I'm wrong?
Fact: the people that bankrolled the initiative give heavily to and encourage most of the things we see out of the anti hunting movement.
Fact: as pointed out here already, it is on record already that their goal is to end hunting and start with the things I listed first.
So it seems that I posted a fact. One you can't refute and instead of backing up your stance- which is baseless, you responded with some cheesy ass one liner. But coming from a guy who implied someone is sexist a few months ago for stating something along the lines of 'the majority of women don't hunt', (also a fact) I'm not surprised to see you in contradiction to reality yet again.
On the topic of this amendment-it sounds like a bad idea. But that's to be expected coming from JFielder
Last edited:
I actually had this hearing on in the background while I worked on the computer yesterday afternoon, as I suspect we may have a similar proposal in CO in the near future. A couple of things that caught my attention: Fielder invoked Teddy R. as her inspiration for wanting to protect the right to hunt. I wonder how TR's philosophy has influenced her on federal land issues? Fielder also said that she is a champion for scientific wildlife management that allows populations to thrive and grow (paraphrased), which makes me believe she would be a strong proponent of separation between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. You wild sheep advocates in MT might look into that....
Been there, done that. Killed the bill.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Never mind.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
There are people that will fight for Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping,
There are people that will fight for Hunting, Fishing, but not trapping.
There are people that will fight for just fishing.
There are people that will fight against them all.
Now if Hunting and Fishing were a poorly protected as Trapping in our Constitution, and under attack like Trapping is, I would guess that the greatest minds in our state would have crafted a bill in to protect those activities in real short order.
Sense Trapping is down there on the list of things people fight for, the greatest minds didn't come together to put the right words on a Constitutional Amendment. Instead we ended up with Paul, and his wife Jennifer Fielder, and by the looks of it the Wool Growers legal expert.
There are 8 lines in this bill that need fixing. We're not re writing the whole constitution here just a few words and I believe there are people here that could get this wrote up in one afternoon if they cared to.
Our new MTFW&P's director is:
Martha Williams
School of Law
Area of Expertise:Administrative Law; Appellate and Supreme Court Practice; Environmental and Natural Resources Law; Legislation; Property and Real Estate; Public Lands and Wildlife; State and Local Government Law
Now I'll bet you Big Horns Rams case of Coors he owes me that she has other Colleges from the University of Montana where she worked that could get his done without any agendas.
IF Fielder would be willing should be the real topic here.
There are people that will fight for Hunting, Fishing, but not trapping.
There are people that will fight for just fishing.
There are people that will fight against them all.
Now if Hunting and Fishing were a poorly protected as Trapping in our Constitution, and under attack like Trapping is, I would guess that the greatest minds in our state would have crafted a bill in to protect those activities in real short order.
Sense Trapping is down there on the list of things people fight for, the greatest minds didn't come together to put the right words on a Constitutional Amendment. Instead we ended up with Paul, and his wife Jennifer Fielder, and by the looks of it the Wool Growers legal expert.
There are 8 lines in this bill that need fixing. We're not re writing the whole constitution here just a few words and I believe there are people here that could get this wrote up in one afternoon if they cared to.
Our new MTFW&P's director is:
Martha Williams
School of Law
Area of Expertise:Administrative Law; Appellate and Supreme Court Practice; Environmental and Natural Resources Law; Legislation; Property and Real Estate; Public Lands and Wildlife; State and Local Government Law
Now I'll bet you Big Horns Rams case of Coors he owes me that she has other Colleges from the University of Montana where she worked that could get his done without any agendas.
IF Fielder would be willing should be the real topic here.
Legislative Intent for the 2004 Constitutional Amendment:
Amending any constitution should be done with care and diligence. That has not been the case in this issue. Many groups have tried to accommodate the Senator but ultimately have had their feedback and suggestions rejected. A lack of planning on Senator Fielder's part should not constitute an emergency on our part. I-177 failed miserably. Yes, people had to work to kill it. That's how democracy works - get engaged and fight for what you believe in. Abrogating the rights of others to protect your sport shouldn't be the knee-jerk response to anti-trapping efforts.
While I respect that many feel the need to pass something on this, I'm not convinced it is necessary or good policy to monkey with what is essentially already covered in our current constitution. This has nothing to do with people protecting trapping, and everything to do with not putting in the constitution something that needs to be monkeyed with for years afterwards to ensure we don't screw up what we have already.
Amending any constitution should be done with care and diligence. That has not been the case in this issue. Many groups have tried to accommodate the Senator but ultimately have had their feedback and suggestions rejected. A lack of planning on Senator Fielder's part should not constitute an emergency on our part. I-177 failed miserably. Yes, people had to work to kill it. That's how democracy works - get engaged and fight for what you believe in. Abrogating the rights of others to protect your sport shouldn't be the knee-jerk response to anti-trapping efforts.
While I respect that many feel the need to pass something on this, I'm not convinced it is necessary or good policy to monkey with what is essentially already covered in our current constitution. This has nothing to do with people protecting trapping, and everything to do with not putting in the constitution something that needs to be monkeyed with for years afterwards to ensure we don't screw up what we have already.
RobG
Well-known member
Why are the Walleye's Unlimited folks behind this? Anything to do with getting walleyes on the west side of the divide?
I don't think that is it. Bob Gilbert, the WU guy that was mentioned as being for this, is clueless. I am a Walleyes Unlimited member and I called him out on something he wrote in the WU magazine, he had to pass my e-mail on to someone else to answer because he obviously knew nothing about the issue I was calling him out on. He also used to be a lobbyist for the Wool Growers Association. He's not a conservationist at all and doesn't deserve to have a leadership position with Walleyes Unlimited.
Bob Gilbert and the way he presents the positions of WU while lobbying, sometimes on things unrelated to fishing, is why I reallocated that portion of my local charitable budget to other groups.
I would like to read the new language but the link isn't working for me. Is this link working for anyone else?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,299
Links are to 296 a bill to reclassify tow trucks. Now that is something I can support!
Similar threads
